KAMALJIT SINGH Vs. BROADWAY AUTO ENGINEERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 5.5.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant). The facts, in brief, are that a representative of opposite party No. 1, allured the complainant, to purchase one Force SUV, on the pretext that, it had engine of Mercedes, which could never breakdown during journey. On such allurement, the complainant purchased the said vehicle, on 1.2.2012, for which, he paid a sum of Rs. 11,00,738, as price. An amount of Rs. 1,07,445, on account of road tax and insurance, in respect of the said vehicle, was also paid by the complainant. It was stated that, at the time of delivery of the said vehicle, opposite party No. 1, handed over two keys of the same, to the complainant. It was further stated that, since one of the keys was found broken, the complainant brought the same, to the notice of opposite party No. 1. The complainant was assured that the broken key would be replaced, with a new one within a week. It was further stated that, from the very beginning, the said vehicle started giving various troubles, time and again. It was further stated that the complainant had to visit the Service Centre of opposite party No. 1, for rectification of defects in the said vehicle, time and again.

(2.) ON 2.2.2012, the complainant went to the Service Centre of opposite party No. 1, to get his vehicle repaired, as he noticed an extra gap, in its rear right hand side door, defective auto -cut of the indicators, and for the replacement of rear vendor cover mat. It was further stated that, on 9.3.2012, again the complainant had to visit the Service Centre of opposite party No. 1, as the vehicle encountered various defects, such as engine missing, bubbling on road while driving, and the meter cluster started showing wrong signals and defective reading.

(3.) IT was further stated that, again on 3.8.2012, the complainant had to visit the Service Centre of opposite party No. 1, for the defects, referred to above. It was further stated that, by that time, in addition to the defects aforesaid, various other problems also erupted in the said vehicle. It was further stated that, since the AC of the said vehicle was not fully operational, the complainant could not enjoy the same, in peak humid weather. It was further stated that the complainant had to pay visit to the Service Centre of opposite party No. 1, on a number of occasions, for rectification of the problems/defects, which erupted in the vehicle, in question, very frequently.